growth, a rising share of the national product in most countries will have to be invested in education to meet the goals that they have established for themselves. This cost problem demonstrates the need for new approaches-new building methods, new methods of imparting information that will break the requirement for rather inflexible teacher/pupil ratios. It also demonstrates the need for a careful balancing of the costs and benefits of additional spending on education with those of alternative investments. This is easier said than done, for reasons outlined in the previous section, and this is an area for further research. Additionally, this study indicates that a variety of population projections and their implications need to be studied when long-term educational plans are formulated. Typically only one population projection (the "official" projection) is considered, the rapid growth of numbers at the school-going ages lamented, and schemes for accommodating extra pupils in the school system discussed. The weakness of this approach is evident enough: Who can confidently predict the level of fertility in any developing country 15, or even 10, years hence? Employing a number of projections with alternative assumptions for fertility and mortality, though it would add complexity to planning, would make explicit the uncertainty of future trends. Furthermore, it would focus attention on the benefits from a reduction in fertility. Lack of such information, as well as a lack of recognition that population trends can be modified by government action, is probably a major reason why education ministries (and UNESCO) have not typically been strong proponents of efforts to lower birth rates. REFERENCES 1. World Bank Atlas: Population and per Capita Product. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1968. 2. UNESCO Statistical Yearbook, 1967. Paris, 1968. 3. New York Times, February 19, 1969. 4. New York Times, June 23, 1968. 5. UNESCO, An Asian Model of Educational Development: Perspectives for 1965-80. Paris, 1966. 6. Harbison, Frederick H., and Charles A. Myers, Education, Manpower ami Economic Growth. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. pp. 31-34. 7. Curie, Adam, Planning for Education in Pakistan. Cambridge, Mass.: Har- vard Univ. Press, 1966. p. 107. 8. Pakistan Commission on National Education, Report of the Commission on National Education, January-August, 1959, S. M. Sharif. Karachi: Ministry of Education, 1960. pp. 111-112. 9. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education, Achievement in Educa- tion, 1958-64. Karachi: Central Bureau of Education, no date. p. 21.es of this scheme would be its restrictions on mobility and the unlikelihood that it could be operated successfully at the high school level, the level at which most of the students from poor families drop out.